Talk:Human religion

Contents

...This has not been referenced at allin Star Trek...Christianity has, Buddhism has, but Judaism has not. Unless it was specifically referenced in an episode, it should not be here. --Alan del Beccio 21:51, 22 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Keep. - Jesus guys, give it some time to develop. You guys are trigger happy. Star Trek is full of things influenced by Judaism. (the vulcan greeting for example) Give me a couple of weeks to put this together - I've got a day job, a family, and a life. WehrWolf 17:22, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Trigger happy is hardly the word. Perhaps after all of the conversations we have had regarding your previous contributions, you have not yet understood our policies -- especially when it comes to understanding article point-of-view. Memory Alpha is not wikipedia. It is limited to Trek universe content, and is written in the point of view from within the Trek universe. The links you point to are all in reference to background information (and information considered "Trek relevant" but not Trek-canon). Judaism, for example, is not supported by an actual specific reference in any episode, which is noted in the original post for this deletion. Additionally, IF we want to make notes about religous influence used in the making of Trek, such as these "'Trek relevant' but not Trek-canon" references you pointed out...they should be noted in the background information in religion. We are not in the habit of creating pages to fill solely with background information, as was the case with US Space Command badges, and the reason for its merge/delete. --Alan del Beccio 18:28, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I would have though it to be referenced somewhere, but since no one can think of any and since nothing links to it, I vote for delete. --From Andoria with Love 18:35, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Yeah -- i think this one should be deleted until someone mentions it onscreen (i was writing a big answer but i think Alan covered most of the points i did-- all of the instances you cite are background information not article information -- wherefore there's no real way to have it be its own canon article) -- Captain Mike K. Barteltalk 20:40, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Perhaps a category page on Jewish influences on Star Trek? Could anyone support that? Or would that be going too far out on a limb? Perhaps such an effort is far too progressive for Memory Alpha. WehrWolf 21:54, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I think you are missing the point of what is trying to be done here. This is about recording information. Creative writing is used only insofar as to further express the natural flow of data and create a sense of narration. What you are proposing is the interpretation of data, but we wish to leave that up to the reader. Think of it as a means to not only reduces bias, but also invite participation on the part of the reader. Jaf 22:08, 24 Aug 2005 (UTC)Jaf

I've created Religion/temp as a proposed example of how Judaism could/should be handled if we were to have an article called Human religion. The intro is mostly fluff for the example, the focus, in this case, would obviously be on the Judaism section in the background. As for all of WehrWolf's "examples", there were really only two or three relevant "Jewish" references. Creating Human religion seems to be a worthwhile alternative to the text-rich content it would otherwise add to religion, which is essentially classified as a list. --Alan del Beccio 04:17, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

I like the look of the temp page; I think it works as a pretty good catch-all for religious references which don't have their own articles. Support creation of human religion and redirect of Judaism there. -- SmokeDetector47 // talk 04:44, 25 Aug 2005 (UTC)

Delete, as the aforementioned influences are not canon but merely outside origins and influences. If Memory Alpha is about the making of the scripts and concepts, then keeping and merging to human religions would be fine, but if we are writing this from the P.O.V. of persons in the Trek universe, then delete.--Smith 23:06, 26 Aug 2005 (UTC)

A friend of mine found a mention of Judaism (or at least "Jewish") in a joke in the episode "The Outrageous Okona" (thanks to the great Joe Piscopo). Here's the joke:

There's a Jewish guy, there was a Greek guy and there was an Irish guy. They die, they go to heaven, right. And they're up there at St. Peter's gate and they don't wanna die, they wanna hang out on Earth, so they go to St. Peter: "Pete, gimme one more chance on Earth over there, on Earth and if you just give me one more chance on Earth, we won't do anything bad." St. Peter says: "One nasty thing, if you guys do one nasty thing - poof, you're gone, poof you're gone, one nasty thought and you're gone." So St. Peter sends the Greek guy, the Jewish guy and the Irish guy down to Earth. As they are walking, they are walking down the street, there's a bar. The Irish guy plans to go into the bar - poof, he disappears just like that. Well, a twenty dollar bill goes rolling down the hill right, right in front of the guys...

Now this joke is somewhat obscene, especially for Star Trek, but it was told in the episode (albeit in the sped up scene). I don't know if this is enough to Undelete Judaism, so I'm posting it here, per others' wishes.--Tim Thomason 01:08, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it could be enough to have an article on "Jewish", but for canon purposes it would have to be something along the lines of: "Jewish was a term sometimes used in 20th century humor to describe the religious affiliation or ethnic background of a person." Based solely on the joke, nothing else could be inferred for purposes of Trek. Turning it into a long ranging history of Judaism and attempting to bolster it by minor bits of trivia or interpretation wouldn't - in my opinion - be appropriate for this Star Trek only site. That being said, I question the value of such a short article. Aholland 12:17, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I, on the other hand, recognize the value of such a short article. Piscopo referred to Jewish people, so a short article called "Judaism" can define who Jewish people are, in a brief stement to give the line from the episode a frame of reference, with no further information. Unless you're trying to argue that "Jewish" isn't referring to Judaism?(!) -- Captain M.K.B. 03:54, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting you should bring that up. Actually, a case can be made that "Jewish" describes a more expansive group than those who follow "Judaism", since one can be Jewish by ethnic descent yet not subscribe to Judaism. Therefore we do not know whether the joke about someone being "Jewish" means ethnicity only or religious affiliation! And if the former, the article on "Judiasm" would not be warranted based on the dialogue. However, I don't think we need get quite that detailed here. (Though see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jewish#Who_is_a_Jew.3F if interested.) The current article on Judaism is both short and covers the observed material close enough given its importance in Trek; I have no issues with that article. Aholland 04:20, 16 March 2006 (UTC)

Well, you have to finish the joke at least...

... well, the jewish guy is standing in front of the greek guy when they both see the twenty dollar bill rolling down the hill. And the Jewish guy bends over to grab the bill, and poof! The greek guy dissapears.

As the main article states, Gene Roddenberry felt that religion is something which humans have let go of in the future. So, the Enterprise has no priests, no imams, no rabbis, and instead a counselor to take care of the crew's emotional needs. Personally, I am comfortable with this idea.

The issue I have, then, is that Roddenberry's idea seems so incompletely carried out. (I am leaving aside the dreadfully clumsy treatment of theistic religion in Star Trek V: The Final Frontier; as well as some of the TOS episodes, such as "Bread and Circuses"). My question relates only to human religion, not to that of other races (which provides opportunity for dramatic settings and events).

We find many references to religious practices in other races (Vulcans, Klingons, Bajorans). Often the treatment of these is respectful or positive. See main article religion for a full list.

Two questions, then. First, if humans have let go of religion, why are do we get so much of Chakotay's religious practices? I must say it makes me a little uncomfortable to see Chakotay laying out his medicine bundle. And what if he were lighting a shabat candle, or kneeling on a sajada (prayer mat), or eating a little flake of bread with a little wine? Why should it be OK for Chakotay to observe his rituals, and not these others? It makes me uncomfortable because it seems to be suggesting that one form of religious expression is acceptable and another is not.

(The Native American religion also receives very favourable treatment in TNG, towards the latter half of series 7, IIRC).

Secondly, why should the EMH program be burdened with methods of religious and spiritual healing? Why doesn't the Doctor suggest homoeopathy, or reflexology, or iridology, for other human patients?

I know this is a provocative subject. But I believe it worthy of consideration, and discussion. Vivienne marcus 22:04, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

The majority of Trek has been written without Roddenberry's input and is subject to the whims of a myriad of writers. Along this line, if we were to distinguish 'Roddenberry's canon' from the rest of Trek (sounds like a worthy project), it would amount to comparitively few stories.

Regarding the EMH, I don't know what the reference was, or which episode it was in. Knowledge of patients' beliefs impacts treatment. Honoring the Hippocratic Oath to do no harm would include avoiding treatments the patient would find unacceptable for reasons of conscience. Bashir could've used such a sensibility when he overrode Sisko's wishes in "Rapture" in favor of Jake's wishes. -- StAkAr Karnak 22:49, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for your reply. The episode I refer to (where the EMH demonstrates his knowledge of folk and spiritual healing practices) is VOY: "Cathexis" (as mentioned above). The phrase "first do no harm" (from Latin "primum non nocere") isn't in the Hippocratic Oath, but I take your point. Omitting treatments which the patient objects to on moral or religious grounds is good medical practice. That's very different from using medical therapies which have no proven benefit. Vivienne marcus 00:06, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

I think that native american indians don't necessarily have a strict view of their own mythology the way other belief systems do. Their ritual practices are more an extension of their cultural heritage rather than any serious adherence to a dogma. It's similar in a way to many contemporary christians and catholics (at least in the US) who pay lip service to god or Jesus but never attend church, never read the bible, and have very liberal interpretations of most of the bible's more arcane policies. Although getting a face tattoo is a tad extreme for someone who's just participating purely for the sake of tradition, native american indians place a lot of emphasis on retaining and passing on artistic/aesthetic practices many of which are totally secular in nature. Many aspects of native american indian spirituality are indeed secular in nature, such as the vision quest. Chikotay refers to it simply as a form of technologically-induced lucid dream state, but in reality, certain altered-states of consciousness can be induced by entheogens which occur naturally and many native american indian cultures practice in the consumption of entheogens to induce these vision quests. Although there are many superfluous rituals involved, they are more superstitious/cultural performance art than what we might call "religion". Catholics, Jews, and Muslims on the other hand do not carry out their intricate anointing rituals in order to preserve their cultural heritage, they carry out these rituals out of a fear of angering their god who might send them to hell for improperly slitting a goat's throat and their motivation for passing on these rituals to their children is merely to prevent their children from suffering in the afterlife. --AlcubierreDrive 16:14, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Ack, I wanted to mention a Phlox quote in the "Religion in Star Trek" section...the one where he mentions visiting several religious sites, showing religion was still around in the 22nd century. But I can't recall what episode it was in...anyone know? --Golden Monkey 14:19, 11 December 2008 (UTC)

In DS9: "The Muse", Onaya states, "The Indians of ancient Earth called them chakras." The concept of chakra is a significant part of Hinduism. Can we infer from this quote that by the 24th century, Hinduism has been relegated to "ancient" history? Captrek 03:14, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

You can't infer that it doesn't exist. They could have changed the name of it since he says "called them" and he might not know the new name. There's also the possibility that Hinduism no longer exists on Earth but the possibility exists that they all moved. Like that "Native American" colony that Picard was involved with. — Morder (talk) 03:51, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Moved the following out of the article as it is based on someones view from a non-official site. perhaps it could be added back in with support in the form of canon resources?

Brannon Braga said that "In Gene Roddenberry's imagining of the future [...] religion is completely gone. Not a single human being on Earth believes in any of the nonsense that has plagued our civilization for thousands of years. This was an important part of Roddenberry's mythology. He, himself, was a secular humanist and made it well-known to writers ofStar TrekandStar Trek: The Next Generationthat religion and superstition and mystical thinking were not to be part of his universe. On Roddenberry's future Earth, everyone is an atheist. And that world is the better for it." [X]wbm

ehhh I added it back... I was told the site it was taken from IS the official site for a speech that was given by Brannon Braga. Assuming this is a real quote then it's valid.--Jlandeen 06:41, December 2, 2009 (UTC)

I was wondering why there is no mention about Q and the Q continuum or Trelane (and his parents) considering these entities seem to possess most of the powers of what religions attribute to the abrahamic gods (i.e. omnipotence, omniscience) although they do hint at having a naturalistic origin and they never allude to being necessarily "supernatural" in the colloquial sense of the word, or if they do they are sarcastic about it, nevertheless, they deserve at least some brief mention on the page about human religion.

I also want to note that there is a distinction between "spirituality" and "religion". Although there are hints that Captain Piccard or Captain Kirk were theists, that does not necessarily mean they violate Rodenberry's projection that religions fade away after the 23rd century. Although "spirituality" is poorly defined, I think it is simply an unconstrained and generalized version of religion. Religion adheres to very concrete rules and regulations about morality, the supernatural, the desires of deities, etc., while spirituality is more about a broad connectedness to some undefinable and nebulous cosmic force or "higher power". --AlcubierreDrive 16:06, February 13, 2011 (UTC)

Could some one spruce up the quote I added at the top I think it's a great one for the topic. It's from crossover by mirror Benjamin Sisko I'm stupid when it comes to HTML – The preceding unsigned comment was added byCorpuswhite (talk • contribs).

I disagree with that quote being here. This Human religion article has little to do with the Mirror universe. 31dot (talk) 22:55, June 26, 2012 (UTC)

But even in the darkest setting humans still have little to do with god, once you get warp drive god goes out the window. – The preceding unsigned comment was added by24.253.101.113 (talk).

Not really sure what that comment has to do with anything here; the proposed quote has little to do with the subject of the article, Human religion in the regular universe. 31dot (talk) 23:24, June 26, 2012 (UTC)